People v. Khan
| Citation | 182 Misc.2d 83,697 N.Y.S.2d 457 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>VERNON KHAN, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1997 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County (Diane Eisner of counsel), for appellant.
Legal Aid Society (William Ramos of counsel), for respondent.
Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law and facts, motion denied and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.
Defendant was found asleep in a parked car at about 10:00 P.M. with the motor running. The police properly observed his condition and after opening the door of the car, arrested him for driving while intoxicated. The court below granted the motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer test on the ground that the police lacked probable cause to arrest defendant.
Notwithstanding the lower court's extensive analysis of most of the cases in this area, it appears that the analysis used by the court below was more proper for a decision after a trial, instead of determining if probable cause existed for the arrest of defendant at that time. Moreover, in People v Alamo (34 NY2d 453, 458), the Court stated: "An established line of authority in New York and elsewhere holds that for purposes of offenses for driving while intoxicated under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, operation of the vehicle is established on proof that the defendant was merely behind the wheel with the engine running without need for proof that defendant was observed driving the car, i.e., operating it so as to put it in motion." Based on the holding in the case just cited, the police clearly had probable cause to arrest defendant at that time. All other issues mentioned by the court below are properly issues to be determined at a trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...of the automobile is one that should be left for trial and not decided on a probable cause hearing [See People vs. Khan (2d Dept.1997) 182 Misc.2d 83, 697 N.Y.S.2d 457].1 Probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. Trooper Wentland met the four step procedure of Debour. Wentland was per......
-
People v. Hawkins
...67 (3d Dep't 1967) ; People v. Moore , 196 Misc 2d 120, 761 N.Y.S.2d 431 (App. Term, 2d Dep't 2002) ; People v. Khan , 182 Misc 2d 83, 697 N.Y.S.2d 457 (App. Term, 2d Dep't 1997) ; People v. Rose , 8 Misc 3d 184, 794 N.Y.S.2d 630, 632 (Nassau Co. Dist. Ct. 2005) ; People v. Navarrette , 7 M......
-
People v. McCann
...where the vehicle was found. ( See People v. Saplin, 122 A.D.2d 498 [3rd Dept 1986], lv app den 68 N.Y.2d 817 [1986];People v. Kahn, 182 Misc.2d 83 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 2nd & 11th Jud Dists] 1997). With regard to the defendant's statements, the Court notes that the defendant challenges the ......
-
People v. Miley
...has been addressed by numerous other courts, particularly at the suppression hearing phase (see e.g. People v. Khan , 182 Misc. 2d 83, 84, 697 N.Y.S.2d 457 [App. Term 2d Dept. 1997] ["the analysis used by the court below was more proper for a decision after trial, instead of determining if ......